[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 16, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-101
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-120PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, SARA JACOBS, California
American Samoa KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul..................... 1
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Gregory Meeks................ 17
BILLS AND AMENDMENTS
Bill H.R. 3012................................................... 8
The Amendment offered by Mr. Perry............................... 20
Bill H.R. 1063................................................... 24
The Amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga............................ 33
The Amendment offered by Mr. Keating............................. 38
Bill H.R. 8310................................................... 42
The Amendment offered by Mr. James............................... 59
The Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Mr. Perry........................................... 80
The measures en bloc............................................. 85
The Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Wilson 180
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 208
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 210
Hearing Attendance............................................... 211
Markup Summary................................................... 212
Votes of Committee............................................... 214
Materials for the Record
Statement submitted by Rep. Gerald Connolly...................... 215
Statement submitted by Clearpath Action.......................... 217
Statement submitted by CORAR..................................... 219
MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES
----------
Thursday, May 16, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael McCaul
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL McCAUL
Chairman McCaul. A quorum being present, the Committee of
Foreign Affairs will come to order.
The committee is meeting today for consideration of H.R.
8361, the Economic Espionage Prevention Act; H.R. 8152, the
Remote Access Security Act; H.R. 3012, the North Korean Human
Rights Reauthorization Act of 2023; H.Res. 1056, Recognizing
the Important of Trilateral Cooperation Among the U.S., Japan,
South Korea; H.R. 8001, the Combatting Houthi Threats and
Aggression Act; H.R. 8046, the Rosatom Sanctions Enforcement
Act; H.R. 3246, the Sanction Russian Nuclear Safety Violator's
Act of 2023; H.Res. 1063, Reaffirming the United States' Full
and Unwavering Commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in its 75th Anniversary Year and its Goals of
Achieving Collective Security Through Transatlantic
Partnership; H.R. 681, the READ Act, Reauthorization Act; H.R.
8310, the Bipartisan BRIDGE to DRC Act; H.R. 8362, to Direct
the Secretary of State to Host Regular U.S.-Africa Leader
Summits and for Other Purposes; H.R. 7586, to Establish a
Department of State Domestic Protection Mission Related to
Unmanned Aircraft System and Unmanned Aircraft; H.R. 8234, to
Authorize the Secretary of State to Designate Additional
Persons Eligible to Serve as Passport Acceptance Agents; H.R.
8368, to Establish a Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts
in the Department of State and for Other Purposes.
No one can say this committee doesn't do anything or do any
work. We have how many bills?
The Clerk. Fourteen.
Chairman McCaul. Fourteen bills today. And bipartisan, best
of all.
The chair announces that any requests for recorded votes
may be rolled and he may recess the committee at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to House rules, I request that members have the
opportunity to submit views for any committee report that may
be produced on any of today's measures. Without objection, so
ordered.
Pursuant to notice, I will now call up H.R. 3012, the North
Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2023.
[The Bill H.R. 3012 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance and the
clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 3012, to reauthorize the North Korean Human
Rights Act of----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Without objection, the Kim Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute No. 60 circulated to members in advance shall be
considered and--as read and will be treated as original text
for purposes of amendment.
Any discussion on the bill?
Mrs. Kim is recognized.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking
Member Meeks for holding today's markups and for bringing my
bill, H.R. 3012, the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization
Act. A I also want to thank my ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Indo-Pacific Subcommittee Ami Bera for co-
leading this bill with me.
This bill reauthorizes and makes improvements to the North
Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, which authorized humanitarian
support for North Korean refugees' activities to get outside
information into North Korea and the appointment of a special
envoy for human rights in North Korea.
H.R. 3012 reauthorizes these activities through 2028 and
strengthens oversight over these programs and calls for
resumption of family reunifications for Korean Americans with
immediate family in North Korea.
Kim Jung Un's terror campaign against his own people is
only growing more intense. The State Department's 2023 Report
on Human Rights Practices in North Korea cites human rights
violations including unlawful killings, torture, forced
disappearances, political prison camps, arbitrary arrest,
gender-based violence, restrictions of religious freedom, and
forced sterilization.
Women and children in North Korea fast the most inhumane
treatment in the world. Early this year two 16-year-olds were
sentenced to 12 years in labor camp for simply watching K-pop
music videos. Child labor is institutionalized in North Korea
and women are forced into sex trafficking organized by
government officials and human traffickers.
Kim Jun Un's terror campaign is not limited to North Korean
territory. An estimated 100,000 North Koreans are forced to
work in inhumane conditions in factories, on farms, and on
constructionsites in the People's Republic of China. In a
gesture of friendship from the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP,
to North Korea, the CCP forcibly repatriates North Koreans
wishing to defect.
We need someone at the State Department dedicated entirely
to working on North Korean human rights issues. And I am
pleased that the Administration appointed Ambassador Julie
Turner to fill the special envoy position, but I was
disappointed that this position was vacant for too long. In the
event that the position becomes vacant again, my bill requires
the State Department to report on the effects--efforts taken to
fill the position after the vacancy lasts 180 days.
The reauthorization for the North Korean Human Rights Act
of 2004 lapsed in 2022. We must get this legislation signed
into law this Congress. Failing to reauthorize this landmark
human rights legislation sends a very wrong message and signal
to Kim Jung Un that the United States will allow human rights
in North Korea to fall on deaf ears.
I want to thank the 35 bipartisan cosponsors of this bill
who helped bring this bill to a markup and I urge my colleagues
to support the underlying bill, and I yield the balance of my
time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this
bipartisan measure and thank Representative Young Kim and Ami
Bera for their leadership in this important issue.
North Korea continues to be one of the worst countries on
earth in its treatment of its citizens. The government has been
responsible for gross human rights violations including
arbitrary detention, unlawful killings, torture, forced labor,
and starvation. The list of human right abuses goes on and on
and on.
Under such trying circumstances it is absolutely critical
that the United States support human rights for the North
Korean people. We have done so for the past 20 years thanks to
the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, which after being
reauthorized lapsed in 2022. The measure in front of us today
simply reauthorizes the 2004 Act through 2028.
A lot of U.S. policy focuses on North Korea's nuclear
weapons program, and that is justifiably so. The North Korean
regime represses and neglects its people as it devotes
resources to that de-stabilizing and dangerous program. But the
people of North Korea need to know that the world is in fact
watching, that even though their government has forsaken them,
we have not forgotten them. We must be committed today to
promoting human rights in North Korea and empowering those
striving for a better day and hope. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing
this bill to the committee and I want to especially thank Young
Kim, Chairwoman Kim for her leadership on this important issue
and for sponsoring this very, very important piece of
legislation.
I can think of no greater abuser of human rights than North
Korea where, as she pointed out in her comments a moment ago,
teenagers watching a K-drama led to a death sentence, as
reportedly happened last October, to two boys, age 16 and 17.
Of course they used torture very pervasively throughout North
Korea. Kim Jung Un, that is his calling card. And obviously it
is about time we do even more to try to mitigate that abuse.
We all know that this horrific record of human right abuse
is very robustly enabled by Xi Jinping's Chinese Communist
Party. And just one example, in the congressional-Executive
Commission on China, which I chair, this past year Co-Chair
Merkley and I held hearings on how the PRC uses forced North
Korean labor in the fish processing industry which enters our
markets including via procurement by the Department of Defense
and other agencies of our government.
We have written to Defense and others asking them to stop,
to look at the supply chain of the fish that is being sent to
our PXs and obviously throughout the DOD. We still haven't
gotten a good response back. And of course this violates the
Uyghur Forced Labor Act and the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
Ian Urbina, who wrote an excellent series of articles on
forced labor in China's deep sea fishing and processing
industries in The New Yorker was a stellar witness at our
hearing at great risk to himself and to his investigators who
were actually on the boats and much of this, then were able to
trace so much of this to North Korea.
Our hearings also revealed how the PRC forcibly repatriates
North Koreans, in particular women who have been trafficked
back to North Korea where they are often subjected to
imprisonment, labor camps, forced abortion, and if they are
pregnant with babies that are--and this their quote, ``tainted
by Chinese blood,''--what racism--even in some cases the death
penalty, all in violation of the People's Republic of China's
obligations under the Refugee Convention and the Convention
Against Torture.
I have called on the UNHCR. I have talked to the head of
the UNHCR to try to do what they can do to hold China, and of
course by extension the North Koreans--women who are being so
horribly mistreated--to account. Nothing. Crickets. I had good
conversation. Nothing has happened.
I would also note that the Biden Administration has finally
filled the North Korean Human Right Special Envoy position with
an excellent choice, Julie Turner, who for years has been the
go-to person at State on human rights issues. And now this
legislation will further back her and say that Congress is
behind you 100 percent. I do hope that we do find a way to give
her the resources to do even more because resources/personnel
are policy. So I do hope that will be forthcoming as well.
But again I want to thank Chairwoman Kim for this
leadership.
I also want to single out Doug Anderson. Doug Anderson used
to work on my staff and now he is working with the
distinguished chairman. It was his idea to do this legislation
more than 20 years ago. Jim Leach was the sponsor of it. I was
co-sponsor and worked with him on it. It was an excellent bill
then and it has proven itself. Even Bob King--remember Bob King
who used to be the staff director on the Democrat side. He was
one of our special envoys. He did a wonderful job as well.
We need to push back. It is not just about the nuclear
issue. It is about the human right abuse, this special envoy.
And thank you, Mrs. Kim, for your leadership on this. Yield
back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
member wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. Perry is recognized.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 3012 offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Add at the end the following: Strike 22 USC 7812(b)(2).
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply
strikes the provision in the underlying code that allows the
amounts authorized to remain available until expended. This
reauthorization provides approximately $120 million total for
the President to utilize at his expense over the course of
Fiscal Year 2024 to Fiscal Year 2028. This includes 2 million
awarded each Fiscal Year for the President to provide grants to
human rights non-profits at his or her discretion totaling 10
million, another 2 million awarded each Fiscal Year for the
President to increase the number of non-DPRK-controlled
information sources available across the country totaling 10
million, and an astounding 20 million awarded each Fiscal Year
for the President to support humanitarian assistance efforts to
North Koreans currently outside North Korea totaling 100
million.
Aside from these funding streams being duplicative, and in
my opinion often and unfortunately wasteful in comparison to
existing efforts within various Federal agencies making them
thus redundant, these authorizations offer absolutely zero
safeguards, which is really my concern, to prevent frivolous
spending. As is, these funds are available until expended.
Until expended.
It is imperative that at a bare minimum we don't keep money
available if it is not necessary to be used during the
authorized period. So essentially this amendment takes on a
pretty simple policy: just use it. And if you have it, return
it back to the Treasury.
And I would agree with every single person on the committee
and otherwise that sees North Korea for their horrific
totalitarian regime that it is oppressing its people at home
and abroad. And we should do what we can to end that and to
assist people that are fleeing that. But we also need to make
sure that we are not being duplicative and that we are
providing the necessary safeguards to ensure that the American
tax dollar is not wasted where it needlessly does not need to
be wasted.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I oppose this amendment. This kind of language
is not standard practice for funding authorizations and should
not be attached to bills in a selective way. This amendment
would constrain the department's flexibility and adapting to
changes on the ground and could impede integral human rights
programming and support. And therefore, I oppose this
amendment. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Does any other member seek recognition?
Mrs. Kim?
Mrs. Kim of California. With respect, I oppose Mr. Perry's
amendment.
I understand your concern about conducting oversight over
appropriated funds and your fiscal impulse behind it, but I
fear that this amendment may inevitably impact our existing
appropriations. And I would like to ask the gentleman if you
are aware of any unobligated funds at the State toward the
North Korea programs.
Mr. Perry. I am sorry. If I am aware of what?
Mrs. Kim of California. Are you aware that there are any
unobligated funds at the State Department for North Korea
programs----
Mr. Perry. I am not aware.
Mrs. Kim of California [continuing]. Under this
legislation?
Mr. Perry. I am not aware.
Mrs. Kim of California. OK. Well, so I am willing to work
with you, Mr. Perry, in good faith to find out from the State
Department if funds authorized from the last iteration of the
North Korean Human Rights Act are sitting there, but in the
meantime I have to oppose this amendment. And I commit working
with you to get these answers from the State Department ahead
this bill coming to the House floor for votes. We just don't
have time right now to contact the State Department to see how
much, if any, unobligated funds are still sitting there. So I
am willing to work with you, but I think we should be briefed
before we agree to include your amendment in the text.
So as such, I oppose this amendment and I encourage all of
my colleagues to do the same.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Mast? No? No. Okay.
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Mr. Perry, No. 474.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
All those opposed, signify by saying no?
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R.--oh, Mr. Huizenga is recognized.
Mr. Huizenga. Trying to make sure that we are in the right
timing before the amendment, my amendment, or is this a--sorry.
Chairman McCaul. No, this is on the----
Mr. Huizenga. Sorry, I was a little premature on that.
Chairman McCaul. That is all right. No comment.
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 3012, as amended, to the House with a
favorable recommendation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
All those opposed, signify by saying no?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and confirming
changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.Res. 1063, Reaffirming
the United States' Full and Unwavering Commitment to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization in its 75th Anniversary Year and
its Goals of Achieving Collective Security Through
Transatlantic Partnership.
[The Bill H.Res. 1063 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The resolution was circulated in advance
and the clerk shall designate the resolution.
The Clerk. H.Res. 1063, Reaffirming the United States' Full
and Unwavering Commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in its 75th Anniversary Year and its Goals of
Achieving Collective Security----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The resolution is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion on the resolution?
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Keating is recognized.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
chairman and the ranking member for holding the markup today
and considering Resolution 1063 to reaffirm the United States'
full and unwavering commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and its goals for achieving collective security
through transatlantic partnerships.
In just over 8 weeks the United States will host the NATO
summit here at Washington, DC. marking the 75th anniversary of
the Washington Treaty and the birth of the NATO Alliance,
something we are all proud of.
Since the Second World War NATO has underpinned
transatlantic security to maintain peace and stability and
ensure that the strength of democracy would outlast
authoritarian regimes. Now, more than 2 years since Russia's
unprovoked and brutal war of aggression in Ukraine, NATO
represents the core of a 50-member-plus coalition of allies and
partners that have come to Ukraine's backing and support.
As a result of the invasion both Sweden and Finland have
taken historic steps and are now full members of the NATO
Alliance. At the same time non-NATO partners like the European
Union and many Indo-Pacific allies like Australia, Japan, New
Zealand, and the Republic of Korea have supported Ukraine and
will continue to deepen their cooperation with the alliance at
the Washington summit.
NATO is also core to our efforts to combat Russian,
Chinese, and Iranian malign influence.
This upcoming summit and this resolution demonstrate that
the United States' long-standing commitment to NATO is sacred
and that the transatlantic security is American security.
I want to thank Representatives Turner, Panetta, Joe
Wilson, Connolly, Kean, McCaul, Meeks and over 40 other
colleagues who have cosponsored this bill and I strongly urge
my colleagues to support this important and timely bipartisan
resolution. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. I want to thank Representative Keating for this
resolution which reaffirms our commitment to NATO ahead of the
75th anniversary summit here in Washington, DC.
I also want to represent--recognize Representative Connolly
for his leadership in the NATO PA.
In just the past few months we have welcomed Sweden and
Finland to the alliance. And at its core, however, it is about
collective security and the common values of individual
liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
Our collective security underscored by our Article 5
commitment is what others respect. It also what some seek to
undermine. Top of mind are the threats stemming from Moscow.
Today's Russia is seeking to neutralize and eliminate the free
and democratic future of Ukraine.
This resolution makes clear that every State has the right
to choose its own security arrangements, including Ukraine. And
with Ukraine's NATO future in mind, I look forward to important
advances in that process at the summit. The world is intently
watching as the United States helps define the future of NATO.
It is essential that they know where Congress stands, and it
stands strongly with NATO. It shows that we in our collective
strength will preserve our democratic values and stand with one
another. That is why this resolution at this time is very
important so that our allies know that we are with them.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Ms. Manning is recognized.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member
Meeks.
I support H.Res. 1063, an important bipartisan resolution
introduced by our colleagues, Representatives Bill Keating and
Mike Turner, which reaffirms our unwavering support for the
NATO Alliance.
Mr. Chairman, NATO is the most successful political and
military alliance in history. This enduring multifaceted
organization underpinned decades of peace, prosperity, and
progress across Europe.
As this resolution notes, the core feature of this
alliance, the collective defense requirement under Article 5 in
which all NATO members are bound to come to the defense of any
one member in the event of an attack, has been invoked only
once in the aftermath of the terrorists attacks of September
11, 2001. Our allies came to our defense in our time of need.
Today NATO remains indispensable and it has continued to
adapt to new challenges of our time, especially Russia's full-
scale invasion of Ukraine, which poses the most significant
threat to Europe in decades. As a result of Putin's aggression
in 2003 and 2004 and under the leadership of President Biden
NATO has actually expanded as we welcomed Finland and Sweden
into the alliance.
It is no secret that today there are voices that call into
question our commitment to NATO and whether the U.S. would come
to our allies' defense if they too were threatened by Russia.
That is why Congress has already acted to prevent any President
from withdrawing from NATO with Senate approval--without Senate
approval or an act of Congress.
As we prepare to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the
signing of the Washington Treaty here in D.C. this summer, it
is critical that Congress continue to demonstrate its ongoing
support for NATO.
This resolution does just that. It reaffirms our commitment
to this vital alliance and it calls upon our allies and
partners to meet their commitments to spend at least 2 percent
of their GDP on their own defense.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Representative Keating and
all my colleagues for their bipartisan leadership to strengthen
and support NATO. I am proud to support this resolution and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Connolly is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. And I want to commend my
colleague Mr. Keating for this important matter.
We got to be celebrating NATO. If you hearken back to what
happened in the 1930's, there was not NATO. There was no
collective military security alliance committed to democracy.
And as a result the democracies were kind of on their own, and
they failed. And Hitler had nothing to worry about, whether it
was Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, Sudetenland and
Czechoslovakia, until he finally hit a wall with his invasion
of Poland.
Today, no matter the depredations of Vladimir Putin, there
is one thing that stands in his way, and that is NATO. And he
dare not, and he dare not violate a NATO border. And he hasn't.
Article 5 is real and it is a deterrent. It is a deterrent from
that war spreading wider. And that is why he doesn't want
Ukraine to be a member of NATO, because----
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Mr. Connolly. I am sorry. I understand there is stuff going
on. I just--I didn't want to interrupt that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. Any rate, I have also been proud of the fact
that at NATO Parliamentary Assembly--and I know Mr. Meeks made
mention of that, which is it is much harder to achieve
consensus there because we are talking about hundreds of
members, not 32, from many different political parties. And we
have been able to do it in solidarity of support for Ukraine.
And that has made a material difference in being able to
supply, train, and equip the brave Ukrainians in their struggle
against this sociopathic thug in the Kremlin.
Any rate, NATO has proved its worth and I think that it--as
it gets stronger there is a waiting list for people who want to
join it. There is no waiting list on the other side the aisle.
So I think we should celebrate the fact that we actually did
something very successful.
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Mr. Connolly. And, what the hell, I guess I will yield back
my time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. There are more important conversations going
on up here.
Chairman McCaul. Was anybody listening?
Mr. Connolly. No, no one was listening.
[Laughter.]
Chairman McCaul. Apparently not.
Mr. Connolly. But I thought I would say it anyhow. Thank
you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back from that very
eloquent dissertation.
Is there any further discussion?
There being no further discussion on the resolution, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
member wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. Huizenga?
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to my friend Mr.
Connolly, while we are used to having Congress talk and nobody
listening, in all seriousness I hope our friends in NATO are
listening to my intent of the amendment that I have because
this is--as I am discovering my amendment is quite simple. It
adds to lines----
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. If the gentleman will pause. The clerk
shall distribute the amendment.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall read--or shall report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.Res. 1063 offered by Mr. Huizenga
of Michigan. Insert the following after the 17th clause:
Whereas the United States, Poland, Greece, Estonia, Lithuania,
Finland, Romania, Hungary, Latvia, and the United Kingdom,
Slovakia, Norway, Sweden, Montenegro, North Macedonia,
Bulgaria, France, Albania, the Netherlands, Germany, Croatia,
Denmark, the Czech Republic will all meet or surpass the 2-
percent benchmark for defense spending as a percentage of gross
domestic----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
opportunity. And I appreciate while we were interrupting Mr.
Connolly--I apologize for that. I do appreciate the efforts of
Mr. Keating and the chairman to discuss what I believe is a
very serious issue.
As I was saying, my amendment is simple. It is adding two
lines in the whereas clause of the bill, discovering it is
causing much hand wringing within the diplomatic corps because
it designates which countries have honored the commitment made
to our NATO allies by reaching the 2-percent benchmark for
defense spending as a percentage of their GDP in 2024 and those
who have failed to offer reasonable plans and timetables to
meet that goal.
That is in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, jeopardizing the very
nature of the alliance and the collective defense of our free
world. This is not a new conversation. We have had this
conversation for many, many years now.
So let me be clear: I am resolute in my belief with the
need for the NATO Alliance. In fact, some of you know this
story. I am the son of a disabled World War II veteran who
nearly lost his life 2 days before Christmas in 1944 on a
hillside in Italy and at the time was fighting against Nazi
expansionism which then morphed into Soviet expansionisms. And
I believe that we need to have an alliance like this. But today
we are seeing even similar scenes playing out in Eastern
Europe. Now more than ever those NATO allies must step up and
meet the need.
I am from the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. Arthur
Vandenberg, Senator Arthur Vandenberg helped create NATO after
World War II. I have a deep understanding of the benefit, but
it is only beneficial, Mr. Chairman, if all of the signators to
it actually adhere to the agreement. And while the vast
majority of NATO allies have answered the call; and that was
the list that the clerk was reading, by honoring their
commitment made in the 2014 NATO summit, there are some who
have repeatedly discarded this pledge and offer on realistic
strategy to change course.
One of the most disgraceful facts--well, this pains me a
bit. One of the largest contributors and those that have a
deficit are friends to the north, or those from the--from
Michigan, our friends to the east, in Canada, a country with a
top 10 of the highest GDP in the world who in 2023 contributed
1.38 percent to their defense spending.
And reporting indicates that China will not hit the target
by 2030. This is not acceptable. And not far behind Canada in
terms of GDP is Italy. Italy has done a complete about face and
is set to shrink its defense spending in 2024 from 1.46 percent
in 2023. Other NATO allies who are delinquent include Portugal,
Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg. These are all
countries that we have been intertwined with economically,
certainly politically. We just need to make sure that the same
commitment that the United States taxpayer is making is being
made by their taxpayers.
So at a time when sovereignty and transatlantic security
are being tested we have allies who would rather exist under
the security umbrella than join in the burden sharing, in my
opinion. This doesn't make them happy. I am not happy having to
point it out.
So while some in this room and in the international
community want to hide this or at least de-emphasize these
facts from this conversation, we are only doing a disservice to
the alliance and it emboldens our adversaries knowing full well
which countries honored the validity and the sacred commitments
of the alliance and which do not.
So, Mr. Chairman, the 2024 NATO summit will be held in
Washington, DC. this July. I expect the burden sharing
conversation to be at the forefront of those discussions where
they belong. And let me close by saying this: Reaffirming our
support for and the necessity of NATO is crucial for future
cooperation and deterrence of adversaries globally, however
holding our allies accountable to not only the American people
and the American taxpayer, but also to other NATO allies and
their taxpayers is one step in the process that cannot be
overlooked.
So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and
certainly the spirit of my amendment. And was indicated
earlier, we have had a couple of conversations about the
importance of NATO and the importance and the symbolism of the
U.S. hosting this NATO summit, which I am supportive of.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Huizenga. I am happy to yield.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend. I just want you to know I
agree with every single word you said and I want to assure you
that certainly at the U.S. Delegation--congressional Delegation
to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; and I know Mr. Meeks has
been there and witnessed this, we bring this up at every
meeting. And I couldn't agree with you more and I would even
add more thing: We have tried to persuade our allies that when
you don't meet a commitment that is now 10 years old, you
undermine support here domestically because it allows political
figures to say that we are carrying them and they are not
carrying their fair share.
So I thank you for bringing it up and bringing it to the
attention and I assure you we won't hide it and we will
continue to press until we have 100 percent compliance. Thank
you for yielding.
Mr. Huizenga. And I appreciate that. And like I said, this
pains me. I am going to be having a group of Canadian
parliamentarians in my office a little later. I happen to chair
the U.S.-Canada IPG. My wife is from Canada originally. Very
familiar and intimately involved in what has gone on in Canada,
for example. And I am assuming they are not going to be real
happy.
But, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, sometimes our job here
to be the skunk at the garden party and to point out the
obvious things and to make sure that we are clear even though
it may be uncomfortable. And so with that, I do appreciate the
opportunity and my time is expired. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Keating is recognized.
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the
second degree at the desk.
Chairman McCaul. Oh, before we get to that then, the Chair
recognizes Mr. Self.
Mr. Keating. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of
this, and let me tell you why: We are talking dollars here, but
dollars translate into actual capabilities. When I was
stationed in the NATO military headquarters actually
negotiating the forces to go into the various civil wars in
Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, it became obvious that we had a
four-tier NATO in terms of military capability. The U.S. stood
at the top obviously, but there were three different tiers. So
this is important not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of
combat capability when we do execute Article 5, which we have
talked about.
I strongly support this because this translates into
capability should we face a resurgent Russia in the future.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Keating?
Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too support the
gentleman's amendment. And while I take into account the good
will from my colleagues on the other side that we are going to
continue to pursue this, we have been pursuing it for decades
now. And quite honestly, as much as it rankles people in the
room probably on both sides of the aisle, the only time that
anything really changed with the pursuit of having our friends
who all agreed to join the alliance and agreed to the terms of
the alliance--the only time that they actually met the
requirements in recent times, many of them, is because the last
President--he required them to or said there are going to be
consequences to it.
The world is a dangerous place. You got Russia stomping all
over Ukraine right now and the people that--and the countries
that are most at risk, many of them right there, don't want to
defend themselves and want us to do it. I mean, that is the
translation I get from I am not going to pay and I don't have
to pay and why should I pay if you are going to pay?
So I think it is important that this body speak with the
voice on behalf of freedom, on behalf of our efforts to limit
tyranny, on behalf of the taxpayers that wake up every morning
and go to work that are paying for this and demand that if they
are paying, for goodness sake can some of these other folks who
agreed to this--can they honor their commitment? Will they
honor their obligation?
And so I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and
don't think I would support the bill if the amendment doesn't
pass. And with that, I yield the balance.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition on this amendment?
There being no further discussion, the chair recognizes Mr.
Keating for his second-degree amendment.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk in the second degree.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Keating follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
And the clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Second-degree amendment to the Huizenga
amendment to H.Res. 1063, offered by Mr. Keating of
Massachusetts. Strike the 17th and 18th clause of the preamble
and insert the following: Whereas the vast majority of the NATO
Alliance has met the 2-percent benchmark for defense spending
as a percentage of GDP in 2024, an important mark which all
NATO member states are required to make----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in regards to the
representative from Pennsylvania saying he wouldn't vote for
this without this language, I am reminded that a very similar
amendment in front of this committee just a short time ago he
voted against that even though it didn't have this language in
it. So I don't think he is changing his position as a result of
this language.
I do want to thank Representative Huizenga. Mr. Huizenga
and I share many common threads here. No. 1, a strong support
of NATO. As he had family members committed, I also had an
uncle who lost his life. He was killed in action in the Battle
of the Bulge on French soil during a time when our country
stepped up to preserve democracy in Europe as we are trying to
do again by defending Ukraine. And indeed, it was Ukraine's--
the illegal war in Ukraine that prompted attention from--our
NATO colleagues had not stepped up to the way they are required
to do, giving their 2 percent.
The second thing I want to agree with Mr. Huizenga with as
well is the need for all of these countries to step up to the
2-percent benchmark. Now, I view that as not just a benchmark
of 2 percent. I view that as the floor. Given what is occurring
in Ukraine right should wake everyone up to the reality of--
that 2 percent which was put in years ago, that is just the low
benchmark of what people should be moving forward with. So I
couldn't agree more with Mr. Huizenga in the importance of
dealing with that base mark of 2 percent.
This amendment does two things: I believe inadvertently the
amendment offered struck the title of the bill, which is really
the crux of the entire bill. So it is an attempt to just
correct the language to make sure that the title of the bill,
which is Reforming the United States' Full and--Reaffirming the
United States' Full and Unwavering Commitment to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization in Its 75th Anniversary Year and
Its Goals of Achieving Collective Security Through
Transatlantic Partnership. We reinsert the title back in, which
is really the crux of what we are doing.
And the other thing is this language also I think
underscores the effort and the intent of his amendment in
saying that that 2 percent benchmark for defense spending is a
percentage of GDP for these countries is an important mark
which all NATO member states are required to meet. So I think
it accomplishes a purpose. It deals with the technical change
that is necessary and I hope this amendment is supported. I
thank him for bringing this to greater emphasis in our
discussion of this today as well, and yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Look, I support the ranking member's--of the European
Subcommittee's amendment and I think that debate and dialog
over burden sharing is very important and essential and I
appreciate that. I think that is important to do. I really
support the essence of the resolution because the essence of it
and what it is really talking about is unity, us working
together with countries and nations that have the same values
that we have, that promotes democracy and human rights like we
do. And it is important that that unity is articulated and
shown ahead of the summit that is going to be held right here
in the United States of America.
And as a result of that, timing matters and language in
this discussion matters especially when it comes to our
commitment to NATO. It has been something that has kept us
together for over 75 years and I think has shown to be more
necessary and important today as it was the first day that it
was founded. It is essential for us to have that unit. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the Keating amendment to the
Huizenga amendment?
Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Huizenga is recognized.
Mr. Huizenga. Yes, thank you. And I appreciate the
sentiment and I understand that my colleagues are wanting to
emphasize the unity side of the NATO Alliance and the summit
that will be here in the United States this summer. In a spirit
of--I am not sure what my spirit is right now.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huizenga. How about cooperation? I know that is
something that has not happened much around in this--in the
halls of Congress these days. I hope that our allies are
listening and understanding. And the direction of the American
taxpayer is pretty clear, and that is regardless of party, it
is regardless of geography, that is regardless of
socioeconomic.
We are faced with $34 trillion plus in debt here in our own
country. And I understand every country that is a part of NATO
is facing some element of serious economic challenges, but that
doesn't mean others just get to ignore an obligation.
And with that spirit of cooperation I will be voting for
the gentleman's amendment to my amendment, but again I am
hoping that those not necessarily in the room, but those who
are most likely watching and--are understanding the seriousness
of these issues that many of us here are trying to underscore.
Mr. Connolly. If my friend would yield one more time?
Mr. Huizenga. I will.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. In the spirit of cooperation I
would be glad to work with you on a separate resolution
addressing exclusively that issue of 2 percent and getting even
higher, as Mr. Keating said. Happy to work with you on that.
Mr. Huizenga. Wonderful. I appreciate that.
Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
Mr. Huizenga. Yes, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will
support the amendment to my amendment and I will be supporting
the underlying resolution, but I appreciate the opportunity to
draw some clear lines today. And I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Keating to the
Huizenga amendment.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
All those opposed, signify by saying no?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
The question now occurs on the amendment offered by
Representative Huizenga, as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
All those opposed, signify by saying no?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
I am very pleased we got this worked out.
There being no further discussion--further amendments, I
move that the committee report H.Res. 1063, as amended, to the
House with a favorable recommendation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
All those opposed, signify by saying no?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call us H.R. 8310, the Bipartisan
BRIDGE to DRC Act of 2024.
[The Bill H.R. 8310 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance. The
clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8310, to require strategies on the United
States policy toward the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Without objection, the James amendment to the--nature of a
substitute, No. 98, circulated to members in advance, shall be
considered as read and will be treated as original text for
purposes of amendment.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. James follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul.
Is there any discussion of the bill?
Mr. James is recognized.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today to
speak in support of my legislation, H.R. 8310, the Bipartisan
BRIDGE to DRC Act. I am proud to have introduced this
legislation on a bipartisan basis with my friend Congressman
Jonathan Jackson from Illinois.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an enormous
country, nearly nine times the size of my home State Michigan.
The DRC faces multiple threats including conflict that
continues to rage in the east, corruption and rule of law
concerns, all of which hamper economic development.
The DRC is also home to 70 percent of the world's cobalt
and has vast reserves of other critical minerals required not
just for U.S. industrial production, but also for national
security purposes. For example, the U.S. military depends on
cobalt just as much as our private sector does. It is essential
for fighter jet parts, precision munitions, and stealth
technology.
Currently, China has a dominant foothold over the critical
mineral sector in the DRC, controlling 15 of the 19 cobalt
producing mines in the country. Roughly 80 percent of the
global cobalt processing and 70 percent of global cobalt
refining occurs in China.
Achieving supply chain security starts at the point of
mineral extraction. And despite our efforts to re-shore
critical mineral manufacturing, refining, and mining, this
administration continues to retard and stop those efforts. So
we must come up with a concurrent strategy in a bipartisan
manner to secure our critical minerals because the realities of
cobalt supply chain--it is imperative that the United States
increase its engagement in the country and supports DRC-led
efforts to tackle corruption issues.
Additionally, the lack of regulation oversight of PRC-owned
mines allows for increased exploitation of Congolese workers
and is directly linked to child and slave labor. Increasing the
role of the United States and partner countries in the DRC's
critical mineral sector will support Western human rights and
labor standards at the DRC's mine and an integral step to
creating a legitimate conflict-free, child and slave labor-free
artisanal and small scale mining sector.
Conversely, walking away from the sector and in turn
completely ceding it to the PRC will only worsen and perpetuate
these labor right concerns and U.S. dependent on PRC critical
mineral supply chains.
In August of last year I led a CODEL to Kinshasa during
which I discussed with President Tshisekedi my desire that the
United States become the partner of choice with the DRC. My
hope is that this legislation will be a catalyst for a
sustained whole-of-U.S. Government engagement with the DRC to
extend beyond just critical minerals and create the conditions
for lasting economic development through the DRC that benefits
the Congolese people and the people of the United States of
America.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion of the bill?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly support this bill introduced by Africa
Subcommittee Chairman James and Representative Jackson, who is
a valued member of the Africa Subcommittee.
The Bipartisan BRIDGE to DRC Act recognizes that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo plays a key regional role in
Africa and occupies a strategic position in terms of critical
minerals that are subject to global supply chains.
For years, the DRC has struggled to consolidate democracy
and ensure protection of human rights amid regional conflict,
political insecurity, and corruption challenges. The bill
increases U.S. engagement with the DRC to support ways to
address the country's challenges, while ensuring the people of
the DRC can benefit from the mining of their country's
resources.
The DRC's long-term stability will depend not only the
country's ability to deliver peace and reconciliation through
democratic governance, but also on inclusive economic growth
achieved through the production of natural resources.
The DRC, so rich in the critical minerals needed to power
some of today's most essential technology, has attracted a lot
of attention. And we also know that the People's Republic of
China has been laser-focused on the mining sector in the DRC
because of these minerals, and with the PRC's firms controlling
a majority of the DRC's copper and coal mining production.
Thereby, it is essential that we take a different and more
considered approach--one that focuses on partnership, helping
to empower the Congolese people to benefit from the minerals
mined from their land through a responsible process that's
driven by standards. We should help to enable mining that
adheres to the highest human rights, as well as environmental,
social, labor, and government standards.
The Congolese people deserve to be free from conflict and
well-served by a democratic government that protects the
people's rights, fights corruption, and promotes
accountability.
This legislation will marshal United States' efforts to
help DRC achieve these goals, and I strongly support it and
urge all members to vote for this bill.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Smith is recognized.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, thank you very
much.
And I do support the bill, but I would respectfully ask, if
you could, to give every consideration to a bill that I've
introduced well over a year ago that would provide a rebuttable
presumption.
We know this is the case. I've held two very lengthy
hearing on this issue. One of them was almost 2 years ago. And
we heard from people from inside the DR Congo about how between
25 to 40 thousand children are being exploited. Some are dying
from the dust and from the hazardous situation of going into
these artisanal mines, and about 200,000 adults are also being
exploited, as, unfortunately, the government has just
completely gone over to enabling the Chinese Communist Party to
control the mines. It's a very serious problem.
My legislation would have provided for a strategy, which is
a good idea--thank you--but it also would have this rebuttable
presumption identical to what we've done with the Uyghur Forced
Labor Act. And I was one of the four co-authors of the Uyghur
Forced Labor Act, which is one of the best pieces of
legislation we have ever done vis-a-vis the People's Republic
of China.
I mean, the supply chains of cobalt that are going into EVs
are so egregiously tainted by this child labor and forced labor
of the adults. And I believe that the government of the Congo,
DR Congo, is not likely to change, even though through friendly
persuasion, but I would hope that that would be the case. But
there is an incredible amount of corruption.
The mines are being run by the Chinese Communist Party. And
again, all the cobalt that comes out of those mines goes over
to China, where it is processed. Then, it comes back in our EVs
that are sold in the United States. That is a seriously
compromised supply chain. It is really against the Smoot-Hawley
Act. It's also against our trafficking laws. But there's been
nothing seriously done by the administration to enforce or even
to raise it.
I did mention it at our hearing, your hearing, when John
Kerry testified. And he said, ``Well, we have an MOU with the
DR Congo.'' I've seen the MOU. It is aspirational. Yes, if only
we could just say, ``Please,'' and they would accede to it.
But people are getting paid off. My second hearing focused
on that as well; that there is an enormous amount of
corruption. And a lot of the workers--and it's slave-like
conditions, the men and especially the children. Again, up to
40,000 kids. I mean, that is horrible.
Every time I see an EV on the road, I think of the cobalt
that's inside driving that EV. I don't blame anybody for
wanting one. You know, that's their free choice. But is it
built on the backs of children in the DR Congo?
Almost all of it is coming from China now. And I do applaud
the President for his most recent action with regards to the
Chinese-made EVs, putting that tariff on it. I think he's doing
that to protect our workers, and I agree with that. But it's
also I hope we would extend it to say, again, the cobalt in
those cars is coming from DR Congo and it's being on the backs
of little children.
So, this rebuttable presumption, our bill would do that. I
would ask you, appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to consider
bringing it up, and, Mr. Meeks, to join us in this.
If we are not serious about enforcing a human rights
violation of such a serious nature, it will go on. Five years
from now, we'll be talking again about how, ``Yup, it's still
going to China. They're still processing it. They have a
monopoly on the entire thing of cobalt.''
So, I would like the dear Congolese to process it
themselves. And again, it's aspirational in the MOU, ``Please
do that.'' Their incentive is they're getting so much money
from the People's Republic of China, they're not going to do
it.
So, you know, I have learned over the time--and our civil
rights laws are a testimony to that--if you don't have a
penalty phase somewhere embedded, everyone could say, ``Yes,
we're all for you,'' and then, they don't do it. And I think
that's the problem with DR Congo.
And again, that's what Xi Jinping has tried to do--control
this industry completely, and he's doing it. As my good friend
and colleague just said, 70 percent of all the cobalt is coming
out of DR Congo, and frankly, in an operational point of view,
it's even more than that because it's all going to China. It's
all going into the EVs. So, I would hope you would consider our
bill.
Chairman McCaul. Yes, let me just say I really appreciate
the gentleman's being such a champion for human rights and all
your legislation on human trafficking. And your whole career
has been dedicated to protecting human rights and children from
oppressors and those who will abuse them.
So, I will work with you to ensure that we will get this on
the next available markup, sir. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
Ms. Jacobs?
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm really proud to support his bipartisan bill by my
colleagues Chairman James and Congressman Jackson.
Last year, Chairman James and I traveled to the DRC and met
with government officials, civil society, and business leaders.
It was clear how important U.S. engagement is, and will be, in
the country on a range of issues--from addressing the conflict
in the east, promoting good governance and democracy, and to
enabling economic growth and prosperity for everyday Congolese.
This bill crystalizes the importance of the DRC's rich
resources and critical minerals benefiting the Congolese people
first and foremost. It also requires a long-term strategy on
democracy, peace, and stability.
The conflict in eastern DRC has resulted in the world's
second-largest internal displacement crisis, second only to
Sudan--with over 25 million people, a quarter of the
population, in need of assistance. So, I'm glad this bill
requires transparent interagency coordination between security
forces, the protection of civilians, and truth and
reconciliation.
DRC deserves more attention in the world and in this body.
So, I'm glad to support this bill today, and I thank my
colleagues for introducing it.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Jackson is recognized.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman McCaul.
I'd like to thank the honorable Congressman John James, and
thank my leader, Congressman Meeks, and my dear colleague
Representative Jacobs.
I think the U.S. relations with the Democratic Republic of
the Congo are deep and longstanding. U.S. foreign policy has
focused on advancing our mutual global priorities, including
advancing democracy and human rights.
So, thank you for the passionate speech that you have given
us on human rights.
And we share those concerns as well, as we combat the
climate crisis; countering wildlife and timber trafficking;
responding to multiple security, health, and humanitarian
crises, and securing supply chains of critical minerals
necessary for the global transition to cleaner forms of energy
and mitigating of transnational organized crime.
The United States is the DRC's largest bilateral donor.
This bipartisan bill is aimed at creating a working environment
between our two countries, and therefore, strengthening our
bilateral relationships--moving from aid to trade.
We all know the DRC is a country blessed with natural
resources and are very vital in today's global economy. We are
very mindful of the issues that we have to face. A total of
23.4 million people are projected to be acutely food-insecure
between January and June 2024, and an estimated 2.8 million
children are acutely malnourished. These are facts that we must
address. Six point four million people are internally
displaced.
I believe that strengthening our ties with DRC doesn't fix
the blame, but moves toward fixing the problem. These issues
are devastating for the country and deprive its citizens of the
ability to experience the full potential of their country.
I strongly believe that improved governance and the
advancing of structural reforms are key to maintaining
stability and peace, attracting investments, and creating jobs
in the DRC. It is our responsibility to engage our allies in a
responsible way and build bridges instead of exploitation.
This bill that Congressman James has put forth, and his
staff, builds on the strengths and the longstanding vital
assistance we have been giving to the DRC. As rightly stated in
the bill, the stability of the Democratic Congo is a strategic
priority for the people of the DRC, the continent of Africa,
and the United States. It is in the economic and national
security and humanitarian interest of the United States to
support accountability and inclusive and democratic governance
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion, the committee will move
to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. Perry is recognized.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've got an amendment at the desk, No. 472.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8310 offered by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
Page 7, strike lines 14 through 22.''
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman from Michigan and I have much in common,
including our interest in making sure that critical minerals
are produced in the United States of America. However, I think
we probably differ a little bit on how we should go about doing
that.
This amendment removes the section of the bill that openly
encourages various Federal departments and agencies to
cooperatively find opportunities to increase the investment in
the DRC's critical mineral sector. Simply put, it's foolish to
encourage or remotely incentivize any sort of overseas
investments when this country is dealing with our own
deficits--upwards of $35 trillion--with no sign of slowing down
whatsoever. Every hundred days, another trillion.
And I can assure you that hardworking, everyday Americans
have zero interest in pumping hundreds of millions of dollars
into overseas manufacturing when they can hardly survive
paycheck to paycheck with record levels of inflation and the
increased cost of living at every single corner.
Now, somewhere around 80 percent of the mines in question
are already under PRC control. And there's been few people in
this institution that want to be tougher on China than me, but
I also know that we are starting a losing game with this
interagency investment strategy. We are never going to be able
to out-bribe the Chinese in Africa.
Instead, we should focus on other more feasible and
realistic ways of competing with China on the global playing
field, which is why we passed H.R. 1 earlier in the session,
but, of course, that's not getting any traction in the Senate.
But what is going to get traction is spending hundreds of
millions of American tax dollars overseas. That always seems to
get traction. We're not going to do anything at home; we're
going to do it over there.
Why not place our focus on removing the government-imposed
barriers to sourcing these abundant critical minerals
domestically instead? That's what we should be doing. And as
long as we're willing to invest money overseas to try and do
it, we're never going to do it here.
By supporting this essential investment plan, we all remain
complicit in further advancing nonsense State Department
climate projects and other wasteful initiatives without a
second thought. And, quite honestly, listening to the remarks
of my colleague from New Jersey, I agree with him. Not only are
we going to be complicit in these projects that, literally, are
going to go nowhere and produce nothing for us except more
bills; we're going to be complicit in--and maybe Americans
would be paying for the child slave labor to mine the cobalt.
That's a realistic--there's nothing in this bill that says that
can't happen.
This amendment, at the very least, signals that encouraging
interagency investment in an already saturated market is a
massive waste of time and money needed--badly needed--
elsewhere.
I agree with the gentleman from Michigan what needs to
happen. We just have different ways about doing it. I wish we
could have spoken prior to, in-depth, prior to this markup, as
I always do, because I would rather do this business before we
get here. But this is my opportunity.
So, that's the amendment. I thank you for the time. I
encourage adoption, and I yield the balance.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. James is recognized.
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment to
my legislation H.R. 8310 for a number of reasons.
The United States of America is capable of doing two things
at one time, and both, rather than ``either/or.'' I would
remind my colleagues of my amendment to H.R. 1 to reshore our
critical mineral supply chains, because I recognize that
investing in the United States of America is our No. 1
priority.
But securing our supply chains and countering China, both
within and outside of our borders, is in the vital American
interest. So, whether it's the amendment to H.R. 1 or H.R.
8310, these are both critical to moving our Nation forward,
both economically and from a national security standpoint.
Increased U.S. investment in DRC's critical mineral sectors is
integral for both our supply chain security and improving human
rights and labor conditions at the mines in the DRC.
When so many of my colleagues State, referring to our flag,
that ``These colors don't run,'' and yet, we're running in the
opposite direction on the world stage, in particular, the
African continent, these vacuums of American influence are
filled with chaos from our adversaries, and we ought pay
attention to our slogans on our bumper stickers when it comes
to legislating in this body.
I will quote directly the provision that my colleague is
talking about: ``encourage Federal departments and agencies
including the Department of State, the United States Agency for
International Development, the United States Development
Finance Corporation, Export-Import Bank of the United States,
the United States Trade and Development Agency, and the
Department of Commerce to identify opportunities to increase
the amount of United States investment in the DRC's critical
minerals sector.''
Did anybody hear a dollar amount that the taxpayers would
be paying? Did anybody hear anything that would be contributing
to the debt or the deficit?
My bill was mischaracterized by my colleague Mr. Perry, I
would imagine unintentionally in the haste to understand the
bill. But I do strongly underwrite my understanding that the
priority must be the United States of America, but we cannot
neglect our obligations to secure our supply chains until we
can begin getting regulatory reform and begin mining and
drilling right here--to make sure that we maintain our base of
power, which is our energy independence.
If we are serious about countering the PRC's dominant
position over the critical mineral supply chains, we have to
identify where we can increase U.S. investment. This also
increases business opportunity, which will create U.S. jobs,
rather than creating Chinese jobs.
China already holds near monopolies in processing and
refining of cobalt. And so, the only way for the United States
to achieve supply chain security is to increase upstream
investment at the point of extraction. Seventy percent of the
world's cobalt is found in the DRC, and therefore, accessing
opportunities to increase--opportunities to increase--
investment in this sector, most likely private, ideally in
derisking ways which incentivizes the U.S. private sector, as I
have said before, to follow is incredibly important.
It is for these reasons that I oppose this amendment, and I
look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania on
how we can turn this thing around to make sure that we also, in
addition to strengthening our supply chains abroad, complete
our primary priority of ensuring our energy and manufacturing
independence at home.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also oppose this amendment. United States investment in
the DRC's critical minerals sector, when done responsibly and
with commitment to standards, can help the sector move away
from the harmful practices, and instead, allow the Congolese
people to share in the benefit from their natural resources--
the resources that are from their land.
When identifying opportunities for increased investment,
the United States Federal departments and agencies should keep
in mind both our national security priorities and our
commitment to the highest governance, human rights, labor, and
environmental standards--all of which are critically important.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd just yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Self is recognized.
Mr. Self. I have a question for my colleague.
In this paragraph that you just read us, you're including
private investment, are you not? This is not solely tax
dollars, is that correct?
Mr. James. This is not solely tax dollars, that's correct.
It is the investments that may come as a result of this study
identifying opportunities. Those identifying opportunities
could benefit private U.S. companies, such as companies in my
district, companies that create automobiles and companies that
develop technology for our defense industry.
Mr. Self. But the investment, is it tax dollars or does it
include private investment?
Mr. James. This absolutely includes private investment.
Mr. Self. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Perry, No. 472.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 8310, as amended, to the House with a
favorable recommendation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
Mr. Wilson [presiding]. Pursuant to notice, I now call up
the measures and their amendments that were circulated in
advance, which, without objection, will be considered en bloc.
And each measure is considered as read and the amendments
to each are considered as read and are agreed to.
And without objection, after remarks, the committee will
vote to order the measures favorably.
Reported en bloc, as amended, if amended, and each measure,
as amended, shall be reported as a single amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The measures en bloc include:
H.R. 8361, Economic Espionage Prevention Act;
H.R. 8152, Remote Access Security Act;
H.Res. 1056, Recognizing the importance of the trilateral
cooperation among the United States, Japan, and South Korea;
H.R. 8001, Combating Houthi Threats and Aggression Act;
H.R. 8046, Rosatom Sanctions Enforcement Act, with the
Wilson amendment in the nature of a substitute, No. 88;
H.R. 3245, Sanction Russian Nuclear Safety Violators Act of
2023, with the Meeks amendment in the nature of a substitute,
No. 75;
H.R. 681, the READ Act--R-E-A-D Act--the READ Act
Reauthorization Act of 2023;
H.R. 8362, To direct the Secretary of State to host regular
U.S.-Africa Leaders Summits, and for other purposes;
H.R. 7586, To establish a Department of State Domestic
Protection Mission relating to unmanned aircraft systems and
unmanned aircraft;
H.R. 8234, To authorize the Secretary of State to designate
additional personnel eligible to serve as passport acceptance
agents, and for other purposes, with a Mast amendment in the
nature of a substitute, No. 160;
H.R. 8368, To establish Coordinator for Afghan Relocation
Efforts in the Department of State, and for other purposes,
with a Perry amendment, No. 475.
[The measures and their amendments en bloc follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wilson. Now, I recognize the Ranking Member Meeks for a
statement on the en bloc.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this en bloc package. We are moving a number of
important bipartisan measures in this en bloc.
Two of the most important measures concern nuclear
sanctions on Russia. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 in
its unjustified, immoral war of aggression, the Biden
administration has struck an incredible balance of aggressively
sanctioning Russian leadership and the Russia economy, while
also working in coordination with our allies to bring them
onboard. They have been creative when necessary, and used
economic brute force when appropriate.
And the one that requires a scalpel, rather than a hammer,
is the civil nuclear sphere. The Russian State company Rosatom
is a bad actor that is actively aiding the Russian war effort.
Its role in the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant takeover is by
itself immediately worthy of sanction.
And to this day, the risks of a catastrophic nuclear
fallout are possible because of Russia's dangerous actions at
the plant. And at the same time, Rosatom is deeply intertwined
in nuclear supply chains--and not just that of our allies, but
ours as well.
Given these complexities, I believe that my bill and
Representative Kean's legislation strike the right note, and I
am very supportive of these measures moving forward.
While I must note that I had hoped to see my bill move much
earlier, I am glad it's moving today. And I'm glad and
appreciate that it is bipartisan.
I also want to draw attention to my bill codifying a
regular U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. We must--we must--engage
more on the continent of Africa. No part of the world is
growing faster. And my legislation is a common-sense step
toward deeper engagement, and I look forward to it becoming
law.
And I'm also supportive of the bills under both the export
control and sanctions umbrella that are part of this en bloc.
American technological leadership is crucial to American global
leadership, and carefully applied export controls are one of
our tools for achieving that end.
In terms of emphasis, I think it is most important we focus
on running faster rather than slowing down strategic
competitors. But we also cannot blindly or blithely give away
the keys to the safe. The ENFORCE Act, the Economic Espionage
Prevention Act, the Remote Access Security Act are all
carefully negotiated bills that will enhance national security
without slowing down American technology.
That said, I certainly agree to working with any and all
stakeholders on all of these important issues.
And finally, let me also emphasize my support for the READ
Act Reauthorization.
Mr. Connolly's important resolution on trilateral
cooperation between the United States, Japan, and Korea, and
the State Department's management bills, and other
legislations, are en bloc.
This committee works best when it works in a bipartisan
way, and this en bloc is reflective of that spirit. And I urge
all of my colleagues to support. It shows the committee working
at its best. And I appreciate my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ranking Member Greg Meeks.
And I now recognize myself, and then, we will proceed to
recognize other members under the 5-minute rule, alternating
between majority and minority.
With that in mind, I am grateful to co-lead House
Resolution 1056, Recognizing the importance of the trilateral
cooperation among the United States, Japan, and South Korea,
with Congressman Gerry Connolly, the former President of the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
As Co-Chair of the congressional Caucus on Korea, I am
grateful to support this legislation emphasizing the importance
of the robust trilateral cooperation between our countries. The
Republic of Korea and Japan are valued allies, as we see with
their efforts as they are recognized for the outstanding
presence last month of the Prime Minister of Japan, Fumio
Kishida, who gave a very inspiring address to the U.S.
Congress, and again, reiterated the important relationship
between Japan and the United States.
We can see that we have a comprehensive framework that
supports diplomatic, economic, national security, and
informational domains. I look forward to continuing the efforts
to deepen our alliances to promote peace through strength.
And I was grateful last night to be with Congressman
Darrell Issa at the reception of the Korea International Trade
Association with Ambassador Tae-yong Cho and Chairman Yoon Jin-
sik at the reception of KITA.
Additionally, my home State of South Carolina appreciates
the thousands of jobs created by Korean companies such as
Samsung. And I thanked Andrew Lee of Samsung last night.
And additionally, I'm very grateful in the district I
represent. We have Bridgestone Tire, which is Japanese.
So, over and over again, we benefit with our trilateral
cooperation.
I'm also grateful to serve as an original cosponsor of H.R.
8001, To impose sanctions on the Houthis for attacks on
international shipping, and for other purposes, from
Congressman Mark Green.
On October 7th, the world watched in horror as Iranian
terrorist puppets, Hamas, attacked Israel and massacred
civilians. In the wake of that attack, the Iranian puppet
Houthis were emboldened to intensify attacks, over 150 attacks,
across the shipping lanes of the Red Sea--an attempt to disrupt
global commerce.
Just as it is critical that Hamas be defeated to restore
peace and stability in the region, the same is true of the
Houthis and, also, Hezbollah. I am grateful that this
legislation promotes a policy of collaboration with regional
allies to safeguard maritime security in the Red Sea and the
Gulf of Aden.
We must recognize the Houthis portray themselves as nomads
of Yemen, but they launch underwater unmanned vehicles to
attack Korean, Japanese, Indian, and American ships as they are
proceeding to Europe. These are puppets of the dictatorship of
Tehran and a war we did not choose.
So, dictators with rule of gun invading democracies with
rule of law, which War Criminal Putin launched on February 24,
2022, murderously invading Ukraine, and then, October 7, 2023,
Iranian puppets of Hamas murderously invaded Israel, and now,
we have the threats to Taiwan. And I urge support of this
legislation.
And finally, I'm grateful to cosponsor H.R. 8046, to impose
sanctions with respect to Rosatom, and for other purposes, with
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe Tom Kean.
Additionally, with Chairman Tom Kean, we have an amendment
in the nature of a substitute. And I present that amendment for
the record and to be considered.
[The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wilson. With that in mind, I, additionally, offer for
the record letters of support by ClearPath Action, signed by
Chief Executive Officer Jeremy Harrell, and a letter by the
Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals provided by
Executive Director Michael Guastella.
[The information referred to can be found in the appendix]
Mr. Wilson. With that in mind, working together, we must
address War Criminal Putin, who has used Rosatom as a tool of
malign influence around the world. This state-run enterprise
and its subsidiaries have fueled War Criminal Putin's illegal
war in Ukraine. It has supported Iran's efforts to promote a
nuclear program in Tehran, and it has also enabled the Chinese
Communist Party to have their massive buildup, which is the
largest military buildup in peacetime in world history.
Rosatom used decades-long reactor construction servicing
and maintenance contracts to ensnare countries, including NATO
allies, in Putin's web. This follows the Kremlin's longstanding
playbook of making other countries dangerously dependent on
Russian energy, like what we saw with Nord Stream 2, which
Donald Trump was successfully identifying and which has been
now terminated.
This bill imposes sanctions on Rosatom, its subsidiaries,
and foreign actors involved in the building of new Rosatom
reactors around the world--to sever this dangerous dependency
and to cut Putin's revenues to conduct murder.
We must secure our nuclear supply chains by incentivizing
domestic production and becoming less reliant on Rosatom. This
bill sends a clear market message that the era of reliance on
Rosatom is coming to an end, and it will enable slowly
tightening sanctions, as U.S. and allied industry rise to meet
the challenge and replace Rosatom in our nuclear supply chains.
It is also a critical step in the recently signed law, the
Russian uranium ban, and ensures our allies and partners do
their part to end reliance on the Russian nuclear industry.
When this bill is enacted, it will send a strong,
bipartisan message to the world that Rosatom's malign behavior
will no longer tolerated.
The bill also will advance global nonproliferation goals by
requiring a reexamination of the civil nuclear cooperation with
countries like Russia and China under the so-called ``123
Agreements.''
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
And now, I recognize Congresswoman Kathy Manning.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. Thank you,
Chairman Wilson.
I support the en bloc which includes H.R. 8001, the
Combating Houthi Threats and Aggression Act, bipartisan
legislation introduced by Representatives Mark Green and Jared
Moskowitz.
Mr. Chairman, since November, the Houthis, an Iranian-
backed terrorist Shia militia, have launched an unprecedented
series of attacks against international shipping--attacks they
claim are aimed at targeting Israel and its Western allies.
According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, there have
been at least 53 separate Houthi attacks on commercial vessels
and one Houthi seizure of a commercial vessel in these areas--
affecting over 55 nations. These reckless attacks have had a
major impact on international shipping. That is because 15
percent of global trade passes through the Red Sea and the Suez
Canal--with the Gulf of Aden and the Bab-el-Mandeb being
critical global maritime checkpoints.
The Houthi attacks, therefore, threaten one of our core
commitments in the region--maintaining the free flow of
commerce and safe navigation. In fact, we have already
witnessed slowdown and decline in global commerce--food, fuel,
and humanitarian assistance--because of these attacks. And
these dangerous attacks also deeply destabilize the region.
As the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence
Community notes, ``The Houthis' continued attacks against
shipping and on Israel create a real risk of broader
escalation.''
I applaud the Biden administration for taking steps to
counter the Houthis, including launching Operation Prosperity
Guardian, a U.S.-led coalition of more than 20 countries to
protect and secure shipping in the Red Sea; designating the
Houthis as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, and
conducting multiple rounds of joint coalition airstrikes
against Houthi targets in Yemen.
We must deliver the message to the Houthis, and to Iran,
that we will not tolerate attacks on our personnel, U.S. and
allied flag ships, and that Houthi strikes against freedom of
commerce will not be tolerated. That is exactly what this bill
is designed to do. It would require the President to issue
reports to Congress on the Houthis' specific military
capabilities to carry out these attacks; on its violations of
the U.N. arms embargo against Yemen, and it would impose
sanctions on those who provide support or are responsible for
these attacks.
So, in closing, I strongly support the bill and the en
bloc, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the
bill and the en bloc.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kathy
Manning of North Carolina, for your continuing bipartisanship.
We now recognize Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I associate myself with both your remarks and those of
my good friend Ms. Manning, especially on the Combating Houthi
Threats and Aggression Act. Thank you for that, those very wise
comments.
And the bill really needs to get to the floor as soon as
possible. So, I thank the chairman for posting it for today.
I do rise, though, in support of H.R. 681, the READ Act, or
Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act. It's a
reauthorization bill that I am sponsoring, along with
Congresswoman Grace Meng.
It's a clean reauthorization through 2027 and includes a
whole-of-government U.S. strategy to improve educational
opportunities and retention for vulnerable children, especially
those affected by conflict and other emergencies. It also
includes an annual report to Congress on the implementation of
the strategy, coordination and oversight over such programs,
and monitoring and evaluation of the programs.
We know that education is key to helping people gain better
opportunities, especially to lift families out of poverty. For
each year of school completed, future wages increase an average
of 10 percent.
This impact is even greater for girls. Girls with no
education are three times as likely to marry before the age of
18 than those with a secondary education.
Reauthorizing for another 5 years will solidify U.S.
commitment to investing in children worldwide. I urge members
to vote in favor of it as part of this en bloc.
And I yield back the balance.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Chris Smith.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Dina Titus of Nevada.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to start by thanking my Republican colleague from
Indiana, Congressman Baird, for joining me as a bipartisan
supporter of the Coordinator of Afghan Relocation Efforts
Authorization Act. That's H.R. 8368, which is included in the
en bloc.
Over the course of our 20-year mission in Afghanistan, more
than 300,000 Afghans worked shoulder-to-shoulder with U.S.
service members, diplomats, and AID workers. They provided
valuable support for the nearly 800,000 U.S. troops who rotated
through Afghanistan. They served primarily as translators and
informal advisors to our personnel on the ground. They are, in
every sense of the word, our allies. They stood with us through
difficult conditions advancing U.S. interests.
In August 2021, the United States conducted a historic and
heroic evacuation that had carried 70,000 Afghans to safety,
along with tens of thousands of U.S. citizens and Lawful
Permanent Residents, as well as citizens of other countries.
Since then, the State Department has worked around the
clock to relocate U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents
of Afghanistan who wanted to depart, as well as the eligible
Afghan allies who worked with us.
Secretary Blinken has made this a top priority for the
Department and has said there is no deadline for this important
work. This underscores the commitment the administration has
made to this effort and the promise of Operation Enduring
Welcome.
In 2022, to solidify these relocation efforts, the State
Department established a special office called the Coordinator
for Afghan Relocation Efforts, appropriately known as CARE, C-
A-R-E. CARE serves as the hub of this whole-of-government
priority, working closely with various Federal departments and
agencies, international partners, veterans' groups, former
diplomats, government officials, and NGO's, to ensure the safe
and efficient relocation of individuals who have qualified to
immigrate to the United States, either as special immigrants or
refugees during the 20-year U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
The Afghan Special Immigration Visa Program stood up by
Congress, and reliant on our regular reauthorization of
additional visa numbers to meet demand, had long faced
challenges and processing delays. But the situation changed
dramatically early in 2021, when the Biden administration
ramped up resources to clear an SIV processing backlog that
accumulated in the prior administration.
Working together, Congress and the administration have
prioritized and streamlined the Afghan SIV Program to meet
evolving demand and uphold our moral obligation to assist our
partners who are eligible for this Special Immigration Visa.
In Fiscal Year 2023, the administration issued the most
SIVs in a single year since the start of the program in 2009.
In the most recent publicly available quarterly report, which
was released in quarter one of Fiscal Year 2024, the State
Department set a record of a 3-month period by issuing 1637
SIVs--ensuring that over 7,000 allies and their families had a
pathway to safety. Although the second quarterly report is not
yet available, monthly State Department statistics show a new
record will be set, as over 2,000 principal visas were issued.
Similarly, the State Department, in August 2021, announced
the establishment of a new P-2 category for refugees, in
addition to the existing P-1 referrals, to expand the available
pathways for persecuted Afghans to enter the United States.
As a result of all these combined efforts, the U.S.
Government has welcomed more than 130,000 Afghans to safety
here in the United States. These are individuals who are
enriching our communities and contributing their talents to the
fabric of our communities.
The CARE office has been the linchpin of this work, but
it's not codified in statute. It works through an array of
existing authorities. But Congress should be unambiguous here.
We support this work. We want to see the job continued. And so,
this bill will formally authorize the CARE office at the State
Department for 3 years and grant important authorities to
further advance its mission.
The provisions also build on the recent creation of the
Enduring Freedom Program that I mentioned from the Fiscal Year
2024 omnibus, to consolidate different funding programs in one
stream.
This is a bipartisan bill. It meets an obligation the
United States has. It brings people to safety. It enhances our
communities. And I want to thank the chairman for bringing it
for markup and the ranking member for his support. And I urge
your vote.
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congresswoman Titus.
And we now proceed to Congressman Dr. Rich McCormick of
Georgia.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm very appreciative of the committee bringing this
important bill H.R. 8631 to markup. As Russia continues its
brutal invasion of Ukraine, so, too, does the People's Republic
of China in support of the Russian war machine. We have seen
concerning reports that the PRC has been filling critical gaps
in Russia's defense capabilities--allowing them to reconstitute
their military industrial base on a faster timeline than people
actually believed previously.
All this built on the ``no limits'' partnership that
President Putin and General Secretary XI declared between each
other back in February 2022--days before Russia launched its
unsanctioned attack on Ukraine. Just yesterday, the two leaders
met in Beijing to pledge their continued support for each
other. Additionally, Iran has continued to has continued to
supply weapons to our enemies around the world.
It's long overdue that we hold both Russia, the Chinese,
and Iran accountable for their actions in destabilizing the
free world. My bill, the Economic Espionage Prevention Act,
seeks to address these concerns by creating a three-pronged
discretionary authority to sanction foreign adversarial
entities that:
One, provide material support to Russia's war machine;
Two, violate U.S. export controls;
And three, steal U.S. intellectual property.
This bill also requires a report to assess whether China is
providing significant support to the Russian military, as
described in the Countering America's Adversaries Through
Sanctions Act.
Last, the bill updates the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act, allowing greater flexibility to pursue actions
against China and other foreign adversaries.
In order to expedite a Russian defeat in Ukraine, and also,
deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, we must begin jointly
addressing this new adversarial ``axis of power'' that
threatens global peace and our way of life.
I want to thank the committee staff for working with my
office to draft this bill and ask for my colleagues' support on
this bill.
I also, further, rise in support of H.R. 8152, the Remote
Access Security Act. As a member of the Task Force on
Artificial Intelligence, I'm proud to be co-lead on this
extremely important bill.
During this era of great power competition, it is important
for us to examine any loopholes that could be exploited by our
adversaries and close them. One such technological
vulnerability is the loophole in remote access to cloud
computing. While the United States has banned the export of
advanced semiconductor chips to companies in China, many have
exploited this loophole by accessing this technology remotely
via cloud technology. They, then, use this access to develop
artificial intelligence technology and strengthen the Chinese
military.
AI is rapidly developing technology and will play a key
role in defining the future and its kill chains. We must ensure
that America leads the way in developing this technology. We
must close the remote access loophole, and by doing so, this
bill will strengthen our national security.
I ask for my colleagues' support on this bill, and thank
Rep. Lawler for leading this issue.
Thank you, and with that, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Dr. McCormick.
We now proceed to Congresswoman Sara Jacobs of California.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm proud to support this en bloc package. In particular,
I'm incredibly proud to co-lead legislation with Ranking Member
Meeks to require regular U.S.-Africa Leaders Summits and ensure
robust implementation of our commitments.
I think we can all agree that for too long the West has
ignored the African continent; instead, prioritizing other
regions of the world. So, I was glad that, in 2022, the Biden-
Harris administration hosted the first U.S.-Africa Leaders
Summit in nearly a decade.
This summit culminated in big commitments. An investment of
$55 billion in Africa over 3 years; support for the African
Union to become a permanent member of the G20; announcement of
the Digital Transformation with Africa Initiative; creation of
the U.S. Diaspora Engagement Council, and more.
Bringing together these leaders and strengthening our ties
shouldn't happen once a decade or once a generation. Because
Africa has the youngest population in the world and is expected
to outpace Asia as the fastest-growing region in the world--
with six out of the ten fastest-growing economies. So, our
engagement on the African continent should be positive,
mutually beneficial, and sustained--no matter who is in the
White House.
I'm glad we have strong bipartisan agreement on this. So, I
urge my colleagues to support our bill to host U.S.-African
Leaders Summits at least every 4 years, to prove that U.S.
engagement on the continent isn't just for show. It's a
genuine, concerted effort to redefine the next phase of the
U.S.-Africa relationship.
I'm glad that this bill is in the en bloc package, and I
yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Jacobs.
And we now proceed to Congressman Mike Lawler of New York.
Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm here today to speak in support of the en bloc, but,
specifically, my bill, the Remote Access Security Act. I'd like
to thank my co-leads and cosponsors Jeff Jackson, Rich
McCormick, and Jasmine Crockett for joining me on this
important piece of legislation.
The Remote Access Security Act is a critical step aimed at
addressing a loophole that currently exists in U.S. export
control laws that allows bad actors, like the CCP, to access
U.S. technology through cloud technology.
The bill also adds remote access provisions to existing
export controls in order to explicitly prohibit covered
entities from accessing this technology remotely. It also
defines ``remote access'' to ensure absolute clarity here.
And as we move forward in the 21st century, protecting our
interests, especially as it relates to emerging military
technology, is vital. We've already seen that China is willing
to engage in almost any kind of espionage in order to try and
catch up with American technological prowess and our advantage.
And we must use every tool in our toolbelt to prevent them from
accessing U.S. developments.
This measure is particularly relevant as it relates to
semiconductor chips. In recent years, the Biden administration
has prohibited the export of advanced microchips used to build
artificial intelligence and modernize military weapons and
equipment. And yet, despite this good policy measure, Chinese
companies and the CCP are still finding ways around this ban by
using cloud services to evade our export controls.
I, for one, don't think that we should be letting the CCP
upgrade and update their military capabilities by using U.S.
technology, and this bill would prevent it.
As China grows increasingly hostile in its actions in the
South China Sea, and its overtly aggressive rhetoric toward
Taiwan, we need to be holding them accountable for these
actions, instead of contributing to the development of their
military capacity.
There are other steps, too, that this committee has already
taken to confront China, including the SHIP Act, which I
passed, that established additional sanctions on Chinese
companies that buy oil from Iran.
The Remote Access Security Act will help bolster our whole-
of-government approach to confronting China and ensuring the
United States remains the preeminent power of the world.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
legislation.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Lawler.
We now proceed to Congressman Greg Stanton of Arizona.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am speaking on behalf of the en bloc and, in particular,
H.R. 8368, the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts. This
is an important bipartisan bill that members of this committee
should readily support. It codifies an office that will do
critical work on Afghanistan relocation that we have shown is a
top priority.
This work is important. The Coordinator for Afghan
Relocation Efforts, or CARE, is the center of the U.S.
Government's effort to relocate Afghan allies--allies that
worked alongside U.S. personnel; allies that we made
commitments to; allies who are now in danger because of their
affiliation with the United States.
As I've said in committee before, I've been fortunate to
get to know members of this especially vulnerable group of
allies, the Female Tactical Platoon, part of the Afghan
National Army Special Operations Command. These brave women
went through rigorous screening and training by the United
States military. They participated in hundreds of direct-action
combat missions against the Taliban alongside U.S. Special
Forces, including Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and Army Rangers.
I'd like to share the words of one of the FTPs who was
brave enough to share her story with me. Quote: ``I can't give
you my name, for fear of reprisals against my family in
Afghanistan. I served in the Afghan National Army's Special
Forces Female Tactical Platoon for 5 years. I speak five
languages. Spent a year and a half training with U.S. and
British forces before being assigned to the platoon. I would
love to serve in the United States Army. I worked alongside
U.S. Special Forces and other U.S. assets in dozens of direct-
action combat missions against the Taliban.
I am Hazara, as are most of the FTPs. The Hazara are a
persecuted minority in Afghanistan and subject of an ongoing
genocide at the hands of the Taliban. I left behind my father,
mother, three sisters, and three brothers. They are now the
subject of harassment, intimidation, and kidnapping at the
hands of the Taliban because of my service with U.S. forces.
Being Hazara only compounds the situation for my family. My
sisters, who are college educated, are in Kabul and are in
hiding, for fear that the Taliban will''--quote--`` `disappear'
them, as has happened to other FTP family members. They are
unable to work, go to market, attend school, visit a doctor, or
even travel to the rural area where my parents live. They live
in constant fear of kidnapping, rape, and even being murdered.
Even though they are only my sisters, the Taliban will exact
revenge on anyone they can find who is related to me by blood.
I fear for my family's lives every day.'' Unquote.
The United States withdrew from Afghanistan 3 years ago,
but there is more work to be done. We need to pass the Afghan
Adjustment Act and we need to codify the CARE office to
continue the work of relocating Afghan allies to a safer place.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Stanton, and
thank you, Congresswoman Titus. As the grateful father of an
Afghanistan veteran myself, your concerns are just so important
to be addressed in such a bipartisan manner.
Do any other members seek recognition?.]
There being no further discussion, the committee will
proceed to consider the noticed items en bloc.
Pursuant to the previous order, the question occurs on the
measures en bloc, as amended, if amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
And all those opposed, signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
measures considered en bloc are agreed to.
I request a recorded vote. Pursuant to the chair's previous
announcement, this vote will be postponed.
The clerk will send out a notice as to the time, but we
hope prior to floor votes today.
With this, the committee will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman McCaul [presiding]. All right. The committee will
come to order. The committee postponed further proceedings on
the measures en bloc, as amended if amended, on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote. Pursuant to the previous order, the
question now occurs on the measures en bloc, as amended if
amended.
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. This
will be our only vote of the day. The clerk will open the vote.
All right. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to
record or change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and
report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 37, the noes are 2.
Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The en bloc is agreed
to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
Pursuant to the previous order of the committee, each
measures are favorably reported as amended if amended, and each
measure so amended shall be reported as a single amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
This concludes the consideration of the measures noticed by
the committee for today. I want to thank all the members.
There being no further business to transact, the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]